About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
as advances in military and defense technology. from last week, this runs just over an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. my name is gideon and i'm the editor of foreign affairs and it is a wonderful privilege and honor and pleasure to be here again at the halifax from. foreign affairs is in the business of serious discussions by knowledgeable people with important issues, free and frank exchanges on the most important questions out there and that's actually the same business that halifax is and so we are delighted to be the media sponsor, and it is going to be fantastic weekend. let me just cut right to the chase. we have a fantastic panel, and more importantly, a great topic and a wonderful group with all of you as well and so let's get right to it. our panelists here, david singer of "the new york times," the former undersecretary deputy secretary of state for global affairs now a fellow at the center at harvard. the head of telefax holders distinguished sibling, the munich security conference where they have a great group. the point of the session is to do some big thinking on
for systems for r an d. science and technology. the benchmark needed in western pacific. there's a whole pan plea of means which we will rebalance. ships are important they are good measure. there's more as we look forward the future and we meet the requirements of our defense strategic guidance in the regard. so having laid that out, i commend that to you as our future and how we see things today as we prepare our budget for fiscal year 14. it's to support the theafort i mentioned to you. i think we're on track and prepared to meet our national security commitment to the regard and the defense strategic guidance. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. [applause] your article in foreign policy speaks to balancing the force. how do international navies play in to your stag -- strategy? >> the international navy play in to the descrat gi by mission. i think and by alliances that we've had. let me speak to the alliance. i just spoke to the western pacific, the japanese maritime self-defense force plays a we cooperate with them to share what we call long range track mission there
. trying to use new, smart technology, that kind of stuff, pretending to get solutions and at the same time, let's say the political diplomatic approach doesn't provide solution in the end. so, isn't it a signal that we are shifting from her politics and diplomacy and rely on tools of solutions. >> is the war on terror divided into a problem rather than addressing the more fundamental issues that might have led to the spread in popularity of chiapas in the first place? >> i certainly think the footprint strategy is intended to do exactly what the questioner is suggesting here, which is simply one of containment, but to do without sending in 100,000 troops and accepting a chilling doublers along the way. but you think about the american reaction to 9/11, 9/11 cost the attackers may be have been dollars of "the new york times" went about trying to do an assessment at the 10 year anniversary of what we spend in total in reaction to 9/11. everything from rebuilding the buildings to the wars in afghanistan and iraq to homeland security and so forth. the number we came up with was $3.3 trillion i
will take money from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in nextgen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft, two proven methods for improving environmental performance and for reducing emissions. airlines for america and air transport trade association testified before our aviation subcommittee last year that the extraction of capital from the aviation system as enadviceaged under the e.u.'s emission trading scheme could threaten over 78,000 american jobs. this is unacceptable. but despite serious legal issues and ons -- objections by the international community, the european union is pressing ahead with its plans. in september, 2012, 21 countries, including the united states, signed a joint declaration against the e.u. emissions trading scheme in new delhi, india. the last year there have been several other multinational meetings of countries who oppose the scheme, including meetings that took place in russia and the united states. the bill before us directs the secretary of transportation to prohibit u.s. aircraft operators from participating in this illeg
of government response, that technology is really just a piece of the answer. you need to have technology on your networks help identify when there's a breach to give you much greater understanding about what's happening on your networks, to look for these intrusions and these incursions into your network. that is a piece of the solution, and part of it is the caller said is really having the discussion with nations that are aggressively pursuing this. there are dozens of countries have these electronic espionage capabilities in place. a specific programs where they're targeting western networks exfiltrate data to empower their private sector, to empower their manufacturing base, the retail base, the research and development programs. they're doing at the expense of the american taxpayer. >> host: where is congress on the cybersecurity legislation? >> guest: there are more than 40 bills right now that are on the hill. covering a whole range of cybersecurity issues. some of these bills have been bouncing around for five years or more. and i recognize understand it's an incredibly complex i
be a light footprint with technological containment of the problem. when i hear $3.3 trillion, i hear the bulk of it is because of what happened on 9/11. my question is, in the new normal, what is the role for militant extremism? is it releasing them from jail and giving them a space and controlling them technologically? thank you. >> i will star with the last. if you think the light footprint strategy is all about containment, then it does raise the question of what are the limits of light footprint? what have we discovered it does not do terribly well? it does not build justice or build the kind of global development that paula was discussing before. it deliberately pulls the united states back from a kind of the engagement that we thought in the post-cold war world that we were heading into. and frankly, you might of thought we were heading into it just listening to president obama during the 2008 campaign when he talked mostly about engagement strategy. we did not hear a lot of discussion about what we have all been talking about here today. i think the fact that we have seen the
. if you talk to some very high technology firms, they will say, sorry, we cannot find enough specialized mathematician's or specialized engineers or an agricultural worker will say we have 7.9% unemployment but i cannot find enough people to help me take care of my harvest. we have 7.9% unemployment, but we do not have enough people in the transportation and logistics arena. perhaps high school kids -- high-school graduates do not want to be truckdrivers these days. they do not want to go back to the farm. it is not totally even. there is evidence that suggests very strongly that immigrants actually take up the slack. they do not compete necessarily with jobs already taken. another of many advantages of legalizing is that wages will have to go up. they will have to formally pay taxes, formally pays social security. the system will be level. there is one thing you said that i think at the core of this. i think it is and a wonderful insight. as the government is getting larger -- and the government is getting larger. the government has grown a four percentage points of gdp in the last four
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7